SUDHIR CHANDRA MITTRA Vs. SUJAUDDIN AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under Section 115 of the C'ode of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment dated 12.9.91 of the Assistant District Judge, Nagaon, dismissing T.A. No. 10/90 filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the opposite parties in this Civil Revision filed TS No. 48/85 against the petitioner in the Court of the Munsiff No. 1. Nagaon. In the said suit, the case of the opposite parties-plaintiffs was that their father Salamuddin was the owner of the suit house and land in the year 1977 they inducted the petitioner-defendant as tenant in the suit house. After the death of Salamuddin, the defendant made a fresh agreement of tenancy with the plaintiff No. 1 and renewed the tenancy once every 11 or 12 months and continued to he a tenant and paid rent to the plaintiffs upto April, 1984. But since May, 1984, the defendant defaulted in payment of the rent, and the plaintiffs prayed for ejectment of the petitioner from the suit house on the ground of default of payment of rent and their bona fide requirement of suit house and for recovery of the arrear house rent. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement and pleaded, inter alia, that the plaintiff had no right, title and interest in the suit land and that the defendant was not a tenant under the plaintiffs. The defendant's further case in the said written statement was that he had taken the suit land initially on lease from one Razia Sultana and Hissaruddin Ahmed and constructed the house on the suit land and subsequently purchased the said land from them and had became the owner of the land and the suit house. On the said pleadings, the learned Munsiff No. 1 Nagaon framed 7 issues and after evidence, by judgment dated 21.1.90 decreed the suit for eviction of the defendant and foi recovery of arrear rent. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learnad Munsiff, the petitioner filed TA No. 10/90 in the Court of the Learned Assistant District Judge, Nagaon, but the said appeal was dismissed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Nagaon by judgment dated 12.9.91. It is this appellate judgment dated 12.9.91 of the learned Assistant District Judge, Nagaon, in TA No. 10/90 which has been challenged in this Civil Revision.

(3.) At the hearing of the Civil Revision, Mr. D. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged the impugned judgment on various grounds and his first ground of challenge was that the impugned appellate judgment did not satisfy the requirements of 0.41.R.31, CPC. Mr. Choudhury submitted that since under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1971 no second appeal is available against an appellate judgment, it was all the more necessary for the Assistant District Judge to have dealt with each of the issues in his judgment after considering the evidence on record in accordance with 0.41.R.31, CPC. Since this has not been done by the learned Assistant District Judge, Nagaon, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside for non-compliance of the provisions of the 0.41.R. 31, CPC, and the matter should be remanded to the appellate Court for re-hearing and fresh judgment in accordance with the said mandatory provisions of the CPC. In support of the said submission, Mr. Choudhury relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ambar Ali-Vs- Hissar Ali, AIR 1950 Assam 197, Arobindu Barman-Vs-Chandra Kanta, AIR 1954 Assam 94, Fakar Ali -Vs- Superintendent of Police, AIR 1971 Assam & Nagailand 165, Bhogmol Gohain -Vs- Lakhinath Kalita, (1991) 2 GLR 147 and K. Ibohal Singh -Vs- Ch. Ihniyaima Singh (1993) 1 GLR 325.